Family history of idiopathic REM behavior disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of proxy-reported REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) among relatives of patients with polysomnogram-diagnosed idiopathic RBD (iRBD) in comparison to controls using a large multicenter clinic-based cohort. METHODS: A total of 316 patients with polysomnography-confirmed iRBD were recruited from 12 RBD study group centers, along with 316 controls matched on sex and age group. All subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire that collected proxy-reported information on family history of tremor, gait trouble, balance trouble, Parkinson disease, memory loss, and Alzheimer disease. The questionnaire also included a single question that asked about possible symptoms of RBD among first-degree relatives (siblings, parents, and children). RESULTS: A positive family history of dream enactment was reported in 13.8% of iRBD cases compared to 4.8% of controls (odds ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-7.7). ORs were increased for both siblings (OR = 6.1, 95% CI 2.1-18.1) and parents (OR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.8). We found no significant difference in sex, current age (65.3 ± 10.2 vs 66.9 ± 10.2 years), or age at self-reported RBD onset (55.2 ± 11.7 vs 56.6 ± 15.1 years) in possible familial vs sporadic iRBD. No differences were found in family history of tremor, walking and balance troubles, Parkinson disease, memory loss, or Alzheimer disease. CONCLUSION: We found increased odds of proxy-reported family history of presumed RBD among individuals with confirmed iRBD. This suggests the possibility of a genetic contribution to RBD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".